Monday, July 04, 2016

The Big Theresa May I Want To Be Prime Minister Gallery

Theresa May for Prime Minister?

Bad enough that you have overseen this appalling McCann travesty for years, rubbed shoulders with the protagonists, thrown millions down the drain in order to further the sham Operation Grange, and now, to further your own political aspirations, are prepared to risk as potential Prime Minister, throwing the country into further chaos and turmoil when the truth inevitably comes out and your duplicity is exposed for what it is.

At the end of May, Tony Blair argued that a government led by Jeremy Corbyn would be a “dangerous experiment”. But with the former prime minister’s own destructive record set to be judged this week with the release of the Chilcot inquiry into the invasion of Iraq, the irony of such a statement has been lost on no-one. In particular, it’s well worth watching the poignant points made about Blair recently by parody newsreader Jonathan Pie.

Pie begins with a response to Blair’s concerns about Corbyn, asking:

What’s more dangerous? Having a socialist in charge of a supposedly socialist party? Or lying to the public and taking the country to a catastrophic war in the Middle East?Calling the ex-PM a “sociopath” and a liar, Pie continues:

As far as I’m aware, Jeremy Corbyn is responsible for zero deaths, whereas Blair is responsible for half a million. And yet he calls Corbyn dangerous. Is that supposed to be some sort of joke?

And then, then he leaves office and literally makes millions of pounds by becoming a ‘peace envoy’ to the Middle East. I mean the man is either a psychopath or a comedy genius

Thing is the largest part of the English remain camp is in the home counties and London....Scotland andd Northern Ireland contain few whom the Conservative party would wish to impress add to that London which isnt exactly a blue hotbed of tory support and you must conclude that to ignore brexit and legislate to remain could be one sophistacated suicide cocktail for Theresa.... ..

I'm all for correct constitutional processes, but you cannot call it such if said process ignores the mandate of the people.

Not much point in holding a referendum in the first place. This isn't one of Cameron's numerous inquiries, only to be rejected if he don't like the outcome. And heaven knows, we've seen enough of those.

First (according to the Attorney General) the war against Iraq was not legally justifiable. Then it was.

Rather like a DNA analysis we've since heard about, where the vestiges were consistent with that of Madeleine McCann. Then they were not.

(Is there a trend developing here?)

"The outcome of the Referendum itself is not legally binding and for the current or future Prime Minister to invoke Article 50 without the approval of Parliament is unlawful," Kasra Nouroozi, a partner Mishcon de Reya, said in the statement.

HOWEVER

DC entered into a verbal contract with the electorate (see my comment at the link dump 28.6, 17:16) which he articulated in Parliament and to Parliament. It was not challenged. It must therefore be construed that it met with Parliament's tacet approval at the time he entered into it, which, I should imagine, is (or should be)a more influential decision in the eyes of the law than any change of heart subsequently. What's more the pledge to hold a referendum formed part of the Conservative manifesto prior to the general election of 2015:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15390884

"8 May 2015: The Conservatives win a majority in the House of Commons in the general election and immediately pledge to make good on their election manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU by the end of 2017"

For Parliament to agree to a referendum only to decline acceptance of the result would be an absurdity. Whether or not the EU referendum result is legally binding in and of itself, the sitting Prime Minister had already been accorded the power of veto/enactment and, in Cameron's case, had made perfectly clear, publicly, what his course of action should be in the event of the electorate's voting to leave.

One might suggest, in retrospect, that he ought not to have done so but he did. And that is what counts IMO.

"The British people have spoken. We have voted to leave the EU. We want article 50 of the Lisbon treaty to be invoked immediately. We still have two years to discuss our exit from the EU, but we do not wish to delay it any further."

A: 101. (One to hold the bulb in place, the other hundred to rotate the ceiling)

There is a serious point in there however.

Messrs. Mishcon de Reya seem to be of the opinion that invoking article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, as an outcome of the EU referendum, requires an act of Parliament. Yet it is but one article of many (at least 50, obviously) comprising a treaty that was signed first, ratified by Parliament second. Nor did that require 50 or more separate acts to accomplish.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15390884

"2008: The UK ratifies the Lisbon Treaty. The High Court rejects calls for a judicial review of the decision by Tory MP Bill Cash and businessman Stuart Wheeler. They claim ratification without a referendum was illegal"

Clearly, as far as the High Court was concerned, the vox populi was irrelevant in this instance. Mishcon de Reya would have us believe it still is.

But back to article 50, a single aspect of a treaty ratified en bloc by a parliament legally entitled to remain oblivious to the will of the people.

The invocation of article 50 is not tantamount to revocation of the treaty, but an exercising of one of its provisions.

Would Mishcon de Reya wish to argue, I wonder, that each and every such provision within the treaty of Lisbon required an act of Parliament to enable? Or that the precedent of first signing a treaty then ratifying (legalising) it subsequently should in this single instance be inverted, an already acknowledged/delegated Prime Ministerial responsibility having to be ratified in law before it is discharged?

The very name Mishcon de Reya provokes the question of quite who is behind this attempt at special pleading, eh, Sir Humphrey?

Followers

Contributors

The Gor Blimey Hall of Fame

We aren’t writing about the investigations into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann or any possible suspects: we don’t want to prejudice a legal process that is working in a most satisfactory way. - John Blacksmith

Read the Summers and Swan book if you want an impartial intelligent insight. It debunks conspiracy theorists amateur analysis - Jim Gamble

"I have seen no basis at any stage for challenging the integrity of the police."

Lord Justice Leveson - The Leveson Inquiry

We never take for granted the continued support and trust which Londoners feel for their Met.Bernard Hogan-Howe

Bush told reporters that “One day, people will look back at this moment in history and say, ‘Thank God there were courageous people willing to serve, because they laid the foundations for peace for generations to come.’

George W Bush on Iraq 2008

"It is sad that we live in a time when a talented and honourable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons," Bush said in Crawford, Texas.

''The effects of radiation do not come to people that are happy and laughing. They come to people that are weak-spirited, that brood and fret.''

“I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.”

Bush interview 60 Minutes 1/14/07

“All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.” – John Hagee

''Once Iraq becomes a very rich and prosperous country... we would hope that some consideration be given to repaying the United States some of the mega-dollars that we have spent here in the last eight years.

We were hoping that there would be a consideration of a payback because the United States right now is in close to a very serious economic crisis and we could certainly use some people to care about our situation as we have cared about theirs.''

Dana Rohrabacher (R) June 2011

''It's not natural for animals to eat each other, they have taken on the nature of Satan. What is natural for animals is to live in the way they were created in the Garden of Eden.''